22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T450,MEMORANDUM Sergio Zavala-Cervantez appeals from the 143-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Zavala-Cervantez contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing because his trial counsel failed to advocate for a 90-month sentence, despite having negotiated the right to argue for such a sentence in his plea agreement. We will not address this claim on direct appeal because it is not one of “the unusual cases[ ] (1) where the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue, or (2) where the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.2009). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T47d,

MEMORANDUM

Sergio Zavala-Cervantez appeals from the 143-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Zavala-Cervantez contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing because his trial counsel failed to advocate for a 90-month sentence, despite having negotiated the right to argue for such a sentence in his plea agreement. We will not address this claim on direct appeal because it is not one of “the unusual cases[ ] (1) where the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue, or (2) where the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.